In a sweeping ruling, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the decision in Peterson v. Martinez creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home.

The case began on a narrow point  a challenge by a Washington State man against Colorados law to issue CHL permits (Concealed Handgun License) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, In light of our nations extensive practice of restricting citizens freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections.

The federal court also rejected arguments that Colorados CHL law infringed on the the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.

The View from the Ground

Colorado law allows people to have a firearm in their homes, places of business and cars. But to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state resident must apply to a local sheriff to get a permit. Peterson claimed that the law left him completely disarmed.

Sheriffs use locally-maintained databases to check for misdemeanor and municipal court convictions involving drugs, alcohol or violence that will disqualify a citizen. The local databases also include mental health contacts, 911 calls that do not result in an arrest, a history of aggressive driving, juvenile arrest records, plea agreements that result

creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home

So let's see if I am reading this correctly - the founders put the second amendment into our Constitution for the purpose of "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government takeover, but only inside out homes?

The Tenth U.S. Circut Court of Appeals is obviously wrong. Sounds like they are confused as to why Lady Justice is blindfolded and it’s not so they can do whatever they want because she can’t see them.

12
posted on 02/25/2013 6:40:44 AM PST
by C.O. Correspondence
(Most bad government has grown out of too much government. . Tommy J)

It is only a precedent in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.

This article was written by an advocate, presumably a non-lawyer. The suggestion that a ruling citing precedent is “bulletproofed” against a SCOTUS review is absurd, as ever appeals could ruling does this.

Considering the 7th Circuit just demanded that Illinois institute CCW because it is a constitutional right, I cannot see how this case does not hit the SCOTUS. There is a direct conflict between two circuits and that calls for SCOTUS to make a decision and set the precedent.

Better hope it happens before any of the conservatives leave the court.

17
posted on 02/25/2013 6:47:31 AM PST
by drbuzzard
(All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)

This ruling, even though I disagree with it, only applies to CCW, not the general issue of carrying firearms outside the home. If a state forbids both open and concealed carry, then we have no 2A rights to bear arms.

Denver forbids open carry unless the person has a CO-issued permit to carry concealed. Plaintiff said he was not challenging Denver's law, only that CO would not issue a CCW permit to a non-resident.

The courts are rather hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Scalia radically modified precedent when he issued the Heller ruling, and SCOTUS "allows" the Circuit Courts to issue anti-RKBA rulings. For example, the DC Circuit recently held that a ban on 10 round magazines is constitutional. The case was appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS declined to hear it. That case is referred to as "Heller II."

Did anyone here see that dumbass cop who pulled over a driver, and asked for his license, and when the guy turned around he saw his CC weapon and told him to put his hands up or he would “shoot him in the back”

Then the dumbass cop ARRESTED HIM for ‘exposing his weapon’

He apparently believes a CC permit means you are REQUIRED to keep it hidden.

I wonder what the resolution was- I hope that stupid cop is fired and the state SUED for hiring cops that stupid.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if plaintiff had not conceded his lack of issue with the Denver ordinance. It ends up being the combination of Denver forbidding ANY carry, unless the person is a CCW holder, and CO refusing to grant CCW to non-residents that creates the issue. The plaintiff gave the court the way out, saying he didn't have an issue with the Denver ordinance. So, the court, not looking at purely the right to carry concealed, has many precedents to draw from.

If plaintiff had argued that the combination creates the problem, and that he objects to Denver's ordinance, then the Court would have had a different issue to argue.

I don't think he would have won, either way. The courts are hostile to the RKBA, to the point of obvious corruption of law.

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, says a lot. However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those arms can/cannot be loaded. Hmmmmmmmmm?

They picked that up in 1043, an unloaded firearm will be considered a deadly weapon.

HB13-1043 Modify Definition Of Deadly Weapon

Under current law, for the purposes of criminal law, a deadly weapon is defined as a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; a knife; a bludgeon; or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used or intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.The bill modifies this definition so that a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, qualifies as a deadly weapon regardless of the manner in which it is used or intended to be used.

29
posted on 02/25/2013 7:23:14 AM PST
by JMJJR
( Newspeak is the official language of Oceania)

I guess another way to say what your remark [CCW reciprocity] triggered, is that the law should recognize the right to carry, without any requirement to obtain a permit. The precedents say open carry is a privilege of being the citizen of any state.

Not that it will recognize that privilege and right, just that it should. When it doesn't, it is acting outside of the constitution, and outside of historical precedents.

Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit added, "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

In this point, they are exactly correct. IMHO.

The only thing they failed to note, is that the Right can only be encumbered against the Rights of another law-abiding Citizen - not a criminal. However, using data gathered from non-judicial sources with no adjudication allows for too much variation across different venues, and should be stricken for that.

Also, that means that no Weapon of any type can be carried "concealed", knives, batons, tazers, self-defense sprays, etc. Law-abiding Citizens have no fear that any of them will be used against them, including concealed guns. Criminals should at all times they violate another Citizen's Rights!

32
posted on 02/25/2013 7:33:47 AM PST
by brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)

So let's see if I am reading this correctly - the founders put the second amendment into our Constitution for the purpose of "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government takeover, but only inside out homes?

That's right! That way they can surround your home with "swat" teams and heavily armored vehicles and wait for you to run out of ammo, or Waco Style, burn you out! Get it? /s

LOL!It is important to keep in mind that BI is the Democrat propaganda version of IBD, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes. BI is not to be taken seriously or as anything other than a Democrat party tool.

who pay their salaries. Why should they not keep assaulting the little cowards, when it profits them so reliably and well? And if the little people love liberty, why do they support those who assault them?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

Apparently so.

42
posted on 02/25/2013 8:36:08 AM PST
by HomeAtLast
( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)

In light of our nations extensive practice of restricting citizens freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections.

How does "extensive practice" have any bearing on constitutionality? Either the practices are constitutional or they're not. There was an extensive practice of racial segregation in schools when Brown v. Board of Education was decided -- its prevalence didn't somehow make it right.

43
posted on 02/25/2013 8:38:51 AM PST
by Sloth
(Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)

“...freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections.”

I have written several times that we need to spend more effort on determining the scope and meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, and that if we don’t it will be done for us.

Those against restrictive firearms laws write about “shall not be infringed” a lot, but if something is not within the scope of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, restricting that something is not an infringement.

45
posted on 02/25/2013 8:46:13 AM PST
by KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)

So let's see if I am reading this correctly - the founders put the second amendment into our Constitution for the purpose of "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government takeover, but only inside out homes?

Isn't that where most people claim the uncrossable line is drawn? Isn't that the implicit setting whenever they crow, "molon labe?" Or is someone going out to meet the threat they say is inevitably coming to their homes?

IMO, 99 percent won't put up any effective resistance in their homes, if it comes to that. They could do it right now, in their homes, without firing a shot. Peacefully, legally, quit their jobs and their businesses and starve the beast. Instead, they continue to pay their taxes, as demanded, to the penny. Does that sound like people who will make a fuss when it comes to their door? While they're at work, I might add?

Historically, slave rebellions often resulted in dead rebels. Slaves today would just be out of funds for a while. But no. Massa lets you keep some of the fruit of your labor. And some of your guns, too! What's not to like?

46
posted on 02/25/2013 8:51:55 AM PST
by HomeAtLast
( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)

I don’t know what happened to the out-of-control cop, but if you go to the upper right hand corner of Free Republic’s home page and type Citrus County in the search box, the first two threads listed in the next window deal with recent discussions here on Free Republic about this incident.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is plain and impossible to misconstrue. Therefore, rulings like this one are deliberate attempts to undermine the amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, by those who fervently hate both. I hope and pray they will someday be tried for treason by a REAL court of PATRIOTS following the latter's victory in the imminent rebellion that is surely coming.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.